Don't mind me, just testing my first post here.

I'm amazed at how many people in this thread answer the question with such certainty that they're right, and that the opposition consists of imbeciles who don't know what they're talking about.

It's like the Laver vs. Borg vs. Sampras vs. Federer vs. Nadal arguments.  They're the only five with a legitimate claim in tennis, and each has his proponents.  I've heard, over the years, with various quality arguments in support of each, Morphy, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Tal, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov and Carlsen.  (I've even heard that if playing with no time constraints Reshevsky was probably the greatest of all time.)

Until such time as every player has access to equivalent resources and opportunities, we have no idea who would win with each at the height of their powers. 

Frankly, I think Fischer would beat Carlsen ... but that opinion isn't even worth the time it took to type it, because someone else thinking the opposite has just as valid an opinion—that is to say, utterly meaningless.

↑ weak argument

JM, do you know anyone who thinks that Laver with his wood racket would have a chance against Nadal today?

The Borg-Federer match-up has already been used for comparison to Fischer-Kasparov. It's apt. They were active in roughly the same periods, and Borg would have about as much chance against Federer using the technology available to each as Fischer ('72) would against Kasparov (1999, to pick just one year).

And that's a critical difference. We can accept that the quality of play in physical sports has improved over the years, but have a much more difficult time accepting that the same is true of mind sports.

Modern openings in chess are cancer of the game. He was right. Maybe something like 960 will prevail.
Years have passed since Deep Blue stunned the world by defeating the human world chess champion at that time, Kasparov.
One could debate this, Even though Deep Blue won the match, few were ready to accept the fact that it
was the better player. Certainly Kasparov wasn’t. The match was only six games, and Kasparov was only one point behind at the end. World championship chess matches usually consist of many
games, with more than half ending in draws. Six games were far too few to decide
something so important... bla,bla. The point is, today human chess tourneys MUST be Chess960. Prove me wrong.

He was right:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi9T5g24XAQ

Obnoxious response.

That's precisely my point.  I wholeheartedly agree that the greatest player of the current generation in most if not all sports, including chess, is the greatest player of all time insofar as manifest skills and demonstrated capabilities are concerned.  Right now, that's Federer (or perhaps Nadal).  There's no question that either would crush Laver. 

Right now, in chess, that's Carlsen.

The only real question, and the one that can't be answered, is this:  If Carlsen were born the same year as Fischer, was raised in an environment and with resources relatively similar to Fischer's, and chose chess as his avocation, who would be better then?

Saying, "Carlsen would beat Fischer" if we pluck them out of time and space and make them play is essentially self-evident.  Carlsen has a huge advantage, as Fischer would have had over Lasker, Lasker over Philidor and Philidor over, say, Ruy Lopez.

When I said, "Frankly, I think Fischer would beat Carlsen," I was not referring to the two men at the height of their powers as we knew them.  In that case, Carlsen wins.  I was imagining them at their very best if they'd each had the same opportunities and resources, and my comment was very much based on subjective perception, not some definitive, presumptuous belief that I'm unquestionably right.  I just think that Fischer, before he got even weirder and more paranoid, had a greater fighting spirit and instinct for the game than Carlsen.  But I could be wrong.

One note:  In tennis circles, Borg and Federer are not considered to have been active in the same period.  Borg retired in '82, and really hadn't played much since late '81.  Federer rises to prominence almost a generation later, with better equipment, superior training methods and a game in which Grand Slams have become the standard by which greatness is solely measured.  Borg didn't bother playing the Australian Open much at all—once, if I'm not mistaken—because it simply wasn't that important back then.  It counted less to the players than, say, The Masters.

And your idiocy is unsurprising.

cry harder, I'm thirsty

I concur...

Many people would not like to face up to the reality of rating inflation.

If Houdini was around in Bobby's day, his moves would fry its electronics.

Many peeps? How many sockpuppet accounts do you think have made responses here?

JM1776, isn't Đoković now the best player? lol

Fischer or Carlsen...it's so hard to say. We are only amateur players ( most of us here ) and we are not on a level to understand who is better. On the other hand, it's a bit easier to compare Federer and Borg because tennis is a physical sport where things are clearer. Just my five cents...

What's that silly cat ranting on about ? sock puppet cats, the place is full of them!

Anand sinws bothh

He's certainly current world number one, yes, and indeed, right now, the best.  But his very best tennis is not quite as good as Federer or Nadal (who are both now into their declines) at their very best, in my opinion.  Djokovic is certainly a top-ten all-time player on mechanics and achievements combined (I'd probably rate them 1 Laver [since those two calendar Slams win the argument], 2 Federer, 3 Nadal [though a solid case can be made for any of these top three at number one], 4 Borg, 5 Sampras [if Pete had won even a single French he'd be in the GOAT discussion, too], 6 Agassi, 7 Djokovic, 8 Lendl, 9 Connors, 10 McEnroe), and currently playing the best tennis in the world—just not the best tennis ever played.  That belongs to either mid-2000s Federer or late 2000s Nadal, in my opinion.  Not doubt those will be surpassed eventually, but ... the single most undefeatable player thus far in history has been Rafael Nadal playing well on red clay.  No one else on any other surface comes close, not even Federer or Sampras on grass.  He's played the French Open ten times and won it nine times.  That's just preposterous.  I'm not sure any achievement in tennis matches it, not even Laver's Slams or Federer semis in Slams run.

What a little twerp.

JM1776, do you remember Đoković from 2011 ( I hope that I'm not wrong with a year )? I think that he had some preposterous winning serie that year and he played better than now...It would be interesting to see Đoković in his peak with Federer's...I would personaly place him in top 5 considering this. If I'm not mistaken Agassi wasn't that successful.

Isnt the Joker playing Fed today in a final ?  I think its on right now in fact ...